This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The reader here may be amused or irritated to read the following assertion, at Talk:Black tie
"The 'kilt' can be worn by anyone with scottish heritage (including by marrage), or from a location with a tartan (Canada and each province has a tartan that would be appropriate to wear). Many organizations also have a tartan (wearing that as well is acceptable). The point is to wear an appropriate tartan. Wearing the tartan is accepting the leadership of that "clan." A mute point today. There are many approriate tartans to wear. A person form Chile would wear the Cochrane tartan, to recognize the great contribution of the Admiral Cochrane to that country. Of course, if you have ever worn a kilt, the Government tartan is always appropriate. see link www.electricscotland.com/webclans/weartart.htm --User:Glenlarson"
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetman (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 February 2005 (UTC)
This is part of a "dscussion" at Talk:Black tie. Here it is in whole, with last response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenlarson (talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 February 2005 (UTC)
"Kilts have become normal wear for formal occasions, for example being hired for weddings in much the same way as top hat and tails are in England or tuxedos across the pond, and can be worn by anyone regardless of nationality or descent. " A recipe for fools. One could with equal truth say that any coat-of-arms can be selected and painted on the doors of one's SUV, "by anyone regardless of nationality or descent." In such circles, it is thought quite witty when someone refers to the North Atlantic as "the pond". --Wetman 19:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just added a few brief words and links about the modern Cornish and Welsh Tartan Kilt phenomena. Bretagne 44 20:53, 1 March 2005 {UTC)
I was very tempted to simply remove the section but would rather give time for faults to be fixed:
Held up by widespread perception that the bill's initial drafting was unduly influenced by a self-interested minority industry faction, it is hoped that new law may yet emerge formalising tartan's status for the good of all. The reasons for needing a formal registry are severalfold: there are no clear definitions of colours, there is no standard definition of the sett, i.e., geometry, or spacing of the tartan's patterns. This lack of definitions has led to dumping of miscolored and malshaped tartans in the North American markets.
Widespread? says who?. Hoped by who? Reasons only given for the registry none against? Why should it matter what floods the American market. The para is simply editor pov and not impartial. It needs citation or major rewording. Alci12 17:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Speaking as a Scot, it is my sincere opinion that the kilt, like any other item of clothing, can be worn by anyone. It's nice to wear the "right" tartan if such a thing exists for your ancestry, but since the whole concept of clan tartan was made up after the clan system had largely collapsed, I don't think it's worth getting worked up about. Daibhid C 10:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have uploaded a photo to commons of a Tartan loom [1], which might be useful on this article in the future, but doesn't currently seem relevant since there is little here about the style of weave used in tartans. I couldn't write such a section myself, but given the different fabric weights and styles of use I'm sure there's something interesting to be said... Karora 12:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
A picture was added to the fashion section of the article; more specifically, the paragraph on "hipster". It was removed without explanation but complements the section well. Is there a reason that I'm missing? The picture in question: File:Plaidpattern.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehhhhhhnnnnnn (talk • contribs) 04:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It says that tartan is called 'check' in the north of England. It might be called check by some, but it's also called Tartan! The national dress of Northumbria is the Northumbrian tartan, not 'check'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.72.66.143 (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
I'm concerned about the section which says that tartan was invented by an Englishman. The oldest tartan-style fabric yet found dates to some three thousand years ago, which well predates England or Englishmen. Now, it's true that our modern form of the kilt was invented by an Englishman, but tartan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.114.39.175 (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
According to the textile historian E. J. W. Barber, the Hallstatt culture, which is linked with ancient Celtic populations and flourished between 400 BC to 100 BC, produced tartan-like textiles. Some of them were recently discovered, remarkably preserved in Salzburg, Austria.
I'd like to point out that the culture that flourished in the area between 400 BC to 100 BC is not called Hallstatt culture, but La Tène culture. I don't have the referenced book, so I cannot check if the mistake was already in the original (in which case the question arises which information is correct, the date or the culture), or if in the book, perhaps only a date or the name of the culture is given and the other information was added by the editor, and therefore I don't know what to correct. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The section under fashion about hipsters contains NO verified references, the one reference given does not mention tartan or plaid once, and is of dubious merit in any case. The paragraphs reads like original research. It might be better to be bold and delete the whole section until some reference can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.207.146 (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Tartan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tartan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Where is the article's mention and description of the Tartans of the mummies of Xinjiang, China?75.21.100.52 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tartan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see Talk:List of tartans#Inclusion criteria, a proposal for a three-point list of inclusion criteria. There are at least 7000 tartans and we cannot account for them all in a single article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I see someone has reverted my change adding ‘plaid’ as a US term for tartan (not an incorrect term as the article claims). The source for this is Merriam Webster dictionary [[2]].
Also someone has reverted my change saying that tartan is a word for the pattern itself (on any material eg paper) as well as a patterned cloth. Any dictionary will confirm this.
Please don’t revert such changes. Ben Finn (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
PS the article itself already states the latter point later on.Ben Finn (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Various of the Wikipedia articles on Scottish Regiments (e.g. the article on the current Royal Regiment of Scotland) refer to Black Watch tartan, or to Government no 1, or to Government no 1A, but they are sometimes ambiguous as to whether they really mean 1 or 1A or what the difference is. I think it would help to explain this in one place, which the various articles on individual regiments could refer to. I propose adding a subsection under "Other Tartans" on this pages called "Government Tartans" and listing there either just 1 and 1A, explaining the origins and difference, or possibly listing all the other Government Tartans that are included in what I believe is the official specification, UK/SC/6335. Any better suggestions or objections?Johnstoo (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I decided that the best place for this list was in the "List of tartans" page so have added a starter version there.Johnstoo (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
There are three unsourced quotations in the article. They are precise and in pre-modern English, so I don't think they are bogus, but we need sources for them. My searches so far have just been turning up other websites parroting Wikipedia. These likely all came from the same book, but I don't know which one it is (and it doesn't seem to be any of the ones I have). The quotations are all important material, too, so are not just something to delete. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The traditional dress of inhabitants of Nazare (Nazareth) in Portugal is a southern European interpretation of Tartan/Plaid. Legend has it this was from when the Scots landed there to help the Spanish and Portuguese defeat Napolean's army. The locals were so happy to see them or so taken with their garments that they fashioned lighter, more colorful versions. The Scots have been stationed so far and wide that this can't be the only instance of locals adopting Tartan as their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N.anderthal (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The "Registration" and "Etiquette" sections contained a kind of random commingling of legal (intellectual property) information in them, and I found good sourcing for more such information, so I merged that all into a "Legal protection" section, and put all three as subsections under a "Regulation" heading. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The line "The Irish people had clans too, except each clan mostly lived within its own community, also known as a county. So far, there are 32 counties in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland".
True there are 32 counties in the island of Ireland but they are not connected in any way to the Irish clans. The county system was imposed on Ireland by the English administration and based on the English county system, it's not native to Ireland in any way. It still exists of course and to the people that live in them there is firece loyalty, I live in County Louth.
Before the gradual conquest Ireland was made up of kingdoms e.g. Oriel, Meath, Connacht etc with an over-all High King.
EddieLu 16:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The "Colour: shades and meaning" section is missing "weathered", though it is mentioned later in our article. I have a source for this and for generally improving that section when I get around to it. (J. Charles Thompson's So You're Going to Wear the Kilt covers all these terms in considerable detail.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The "Dress, hunting, and mourning" section on tartans-by-purpose is missing Highland dance tartans, a whole category. The material is confusing dress and dance tartans, which are distinct categories. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, the widely separated "History of registration" and "Registration" sections are redundant and need to merge (some of the material in the former needs to merge into the planned section on clan tartans, though; see thread further above). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The "Modern use" section should not stop dead at Queen Victoria, but continue to the present. Much of the material in the "Tartans for specific purposes" subsections "Corporate and commercial" and "Fashion" really belongs in the "Modern use" history section, with those two other sections being rewritten to discuss tartans that are for commercial and fashion purposes, not the general history of tartan in the abstract being used in modern commerce and fashion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
WP has no article (or article section) on this curious ritual (common in the diaspora and actually traceable to Scotland, but long abandoned there). It should probably be addressed under Diaspora and globalisation, for lack of a better place. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I've run across several claims that 1707-onward Jacobites wore one or more specific tartans, that are identified. But so far I can't find proof of this.
In M. B. Paterson (2001), p. 172, footnote 38, is this claim: "the Jacobite sett has been known from 1712 'and is claimed to have been popular in 1707 when Lowlanders wore it as a protest against the Union of the Parliaments.'
This is sourced to Margaret MacDougall's 1974 revision of Robert Bain's Clans and Tartans of Scotland.
However, in the SRT, here's what I find:
So, the third of these seems to be the source of the claim, but SRT considers it unreliable, and for good reason. I'm not really sure what to report in our own article. It needs (badly) to serve the purpose of refuting oft-repeated legends about "old" tartans, so we should probably cover this one way or another. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I've read repeatedly (in sources I no longer own; this was back in the 1980s and 1990s) that according to Roman writers of late antiquity, the Gauls commonly wore "striped or chequered" cloth, Latin lacking separate words for the two concepts. I think it might have even been in Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico (58–49 BC), but I'm not sure; perhaps something from the early ADs. At any rate, it seems worth including under "Pre-medieval origins" if the details can be dug up somewhere. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Also: ca. 100 BC [more likely 60–30 BC, time period of the writing of his Bibliotheca Historia], Greek historian Diodorus Siculus described continental Celts as wearing clothing "brightly coloured and embroidered ... chequered in design, with separate cheques close together and in various colours", and seems to be describing tartan or something similar to it. I remember encountering this before in proper sources, though in this case I found it on a random website by Googling around. So a proper source will be needed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The Latin braccæ [what the Romans called Gaulish trews] is generally understood to be equivalent to our breeks. There are, however, traces of the Latin word being used in a wider sense to mean a loose flowing garment. ... We find braccæ described as pictæ and virgatæ, coloured and striped. Perhaps the original braccæ, which so took the attention of the Romans when they met the Gauls, were striped and party-coloured, and so gave rise to the name. In Irish, breacan still means a plaid. It would seem, then, that the Latin word is borrowed from Celtic.
The "Construction" section begins with "Each thread in the warp crosses each thread in the weft at right angles."
However, I think this is wrong, and it should read something like Traditional tartan cloth is a 2/2 twill. Each pair of threads in the warp crosses a pair of threads in the weft at right angles. This produces a characteristic diagonal pattern when the material is examined closely.
Then add a close-up illustration.
I am not a weaver, though, and am not certain this is the very best wording to express what tartan "is" from a construction standpoint. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
In overhauling this article (for a month or more already), I retained the original citation style, for cases in which we have to cite the same source at multiple pages, which was to use markup like ((cite book | ... |ref=SJD))
in an endnote, then in the text <ref>[[#SJD|Scarlett (1990)]], p. 37.</ref>
. I thought about switching to ((sfn))
format, which accomplishes the same goal with less manual coding, but did not for the simple reason that the hand-coded style is more flexible. In particular, it is easy to do nested citations, e.g.: <ref>[[#SJD|Scarlett 1990]], p. 37, quoting: ((cite book | ... |ref=XYZ))</ref>
followed later by <ref>[[#XYZ|Whoever (date)]], p. xiv</ref>
And it is also easy to add notes to a particular page(s) citation, which is something sfn format cannot handle.
Maybe more importantly, though, I have taken to attributing authors inline in the text in the style "Scarlett (1990)" – or in the event of two authors with the same surname, "D. W. Stewart (1893)". This is a style more often seen in science topics, but it is actually rather vital here because many authors published works with very similar titles, the titles sometimes changed between successive editions, and many authors produced more than one relevant work to cite. Scarlett himself advised this style for such reasons.
This topic is also unusually prone to "legends" being passed down from one author to another, originally with no basis but repeated so often (sometimes with something of a politicised motivation) they have acquired a sense of incontrovertible fact about them, at least in the minds of many of the readers who will arrive at our article after encountering wild claims about "ancient" clan tartans (or whatever) on some blog. In encyclopedic writing, this makes direct attribution often more important than it would be in some other textile-related article. It's important for the reader to be able to understand at first glance when a claim is coming from a romanticized Victorian work or from a work of modern scholarship, especially when these views are juxtaposed.
Part of the "job" of this article is to dispel such legends when modern research can dispense with them (and toward this end, I've labeled the "legends" as such when addressing them). This topic has to be approached with WP:FRINGE in mind, because a large number of unsupportable claims have been made about tartan history, and they are subject to intense and emotional faith on the part of some writers and many of our readers. (The irrationality and heat brought in defense of some of the tartan legends in online forums is what inspired me to overhaul this article in the first place, because it was doing nearly nothing to address them, and was even repeating a few of them based on weak sourcing; we have similar problems in other articles on Highland dress, but one thing at a time....) This is not just my opinion, but a warning issued by all modern writers on tartan, who observe a strong trend of legendry floating around the subject and passed from book to book.
This also means that more than the usual care has to be mustered in editorially evaluating source reliability; it is not enough to simply find a secondary source and cite it willy-nilly without carefully considering how it fits into the entire picture of tartan research, as a large number of those modern sources (especially Web-based and journalistic ones) rely on Victorian primary "research" that took great "Ossian"-flavoured liberties with the facts and their interpretation. This even applies to bodies one might assume are the most reliable, such as Scottish Register of Tartans and the previous tartan databases. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Being a fan of Scotland and tartans, I read this article with much interest. I learned several things but I think the article can be improved and expanded. I made several improvements, primarily to the layout and the structure. I have a few comments.
1. The introduction briefly mentioned two of the most famous tartans, then it mentioned them again later. I consolidated the information in a single place and created a section for two of the most popular tartans. I also added two images.
2. The article is not clear about dress and hunting tartans. It provides an explanation for the dress tartan but it doesn't really say anything about the hunting tartan (explaining them as a "Victorian conception" is insufficient). My understanding is that hunting tartans are for the outdoors and that there is no correlation to hunting.
3. This article should have a dedicated section that lists adjectives that describe tartans such as ancient, muted, modern, dress, hunting, mourning and universal.
4. The tartan with the caption ""Ye principal clovris of ye clanne Stewart" which appeared in the Sobieski Stuarts's forgery Vestiarium Scoticum of 1842" should be properly labeled a "Clan Stewart/Stuart tartan" instead (possibly with the additional label of "dress" since the typical red of the standard "Clan Stewart/Stuart tartan" is replaced by white).
5. I believe the sentence "Both organisations are registered Scottish charities and record new tartans (free in the case of STS and for a fee in the case of STWR) on request." should really say STA rather than STS. It seems logical to me.
6. It would be nice to load an image of the Falkirk tartan in the origins section and an image of the Balmoral tartan in the etiquette section.
7. I am not completely sure whether the Black Watch is truly also called also Universal or that specific tartan happens to be a universal tartan. The big or small u make a difference in this context.
ICE77 (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd love to see some info about tartan design principles, if any exist. If there is a registry, how similar is too similar? What motifs appear in related tartans? Are there tartans that combine motifs from two or more others? In other words, is there anything in tartanry that corresponds to the symbolic language of heraldry? —Tamfang 05:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
@Tamfang: Suprisingly, I was able, between a couple of major sources, to find enough design-principles material to create a short section on it, at Tartan#Styles and design principles. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
What's the difference? 71.234.109.192 (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The article now explains this terminology adequately (without wallowing into opinions of individuals like De La Chapelle). However, we don't cover the Florentine angel in tartan cloak. I did find a working URL to get that image, but need to process it into Commons. It's on the to-do list. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
At some point, need to add something into the article explaining that a primary reason for the Victorian/modern split on the "ancient clan tartans" legend is specifically because the National Records of Scotland (formerly National Archives of Scotland) has indexed and made available large numbers of key period manuscripts (like copious records of Wilson & Son of Bannockburn) that Victorian writers simply did not have ready if any access to. I think a few pages in Scarlett (1990) briefly address this, but I'll need to hunt them down again. And even he was writing before the public Internet existed; Newsome, Eslea McDonald, and few other very recent researchers may have something to say about it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I've already quoted Thompson (1989) on the Victorian authors' bad habit of simply repeating whatever assertions they encountered in previous writing without much critical thinking being applied. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
A while back, I ran into a source mentioning Irish nobles in Ulster having imported (and presumably wearing) Scottish tartan; but I didn't take note of it at the time and forgot which book or paper it was in.
There's a pervasive legend that the Irish were also commonly wearing tartan, and it needs to either be dispelled or proven correct at some point (see above RM discussion for how solidly some people believe that tartan is "Scottish and Irish"). Dunbar 1978 goes into some detail about how both the Irish and the Gaelic Scots (before the prevalence of the belted plaid) wore "mantles" (cloaks), over tunics (léine, often saffron-dyed), but (so far as I've read yet) does not indicate that the mantles were tartan. Various other writers I've already gone through said similar, and again did not mention evidence of the mantles being tartan.
Mackay (1924, p. 85) says:
Camden in his Britannia, first published in 1607, gives the following description of the Highland dress and armour : "They are clothed after the Irish fashion, in striped mantles, with their hair thick and long. In war they wear an iron head-piece and a coat of mail woven with iron rings; and they use bows and barbed arrows and broad swords."
So, that's one case of "striped". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Same author also makes it clear (perhaps without meaning to) that the term "mantle" was sometimes applied to plaids later:
The Rev. James Brome, in his travels over England, Scotland, and Wales, published at London in 1700, 8vo, gives (p. 183) the following description of the Highland dress and armour, which, although partly translated from Buchanan, has yet in it something original: "The Highlanders who inhabit the west part of the country ... go habited in mantles striped or streaked with divers colours about their shoulders, which they call pladden ....
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
User:2601:8C3:857D:5DD0:B592:73F3:E6AD:726D improperly added these comments (in bold) into the main article instead of the talk page:
I'll revert the edit but I think it's worth looking into by someone more knowledgeable. The Scotsman says that tartan cloth itself wasn't necessarily banned and The House of Tartan gives a late 18th century date for clan-specific tartans, not a 19th century one. Again, someone who is better versed in Scottish history and has the time might know better and how to track down more appropriate sources. TangoFett (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Some additional points, and this all really needs to be worked up into a coherent, chronological "Clan tartans" first subsection under "Modern use" (though the "Modern use" header itself, bifurcating the "History" section, should probably go):
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 00:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
A BBC documentary, Spinning a Yarn: The Dubious History of Scottish Tartan (which gets some minor things wrong but mostly agrees with the book sources I have) suggests, without any details or indication where they got this from, that "some MacDonalds", Clan Gregor, and the Gordons may have had early informal clan tartans. Not a great source, but it bears looking into in better sources. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The claim I mentioned above, I've narrowed it down a little.
'The first documented effort to enforce a uniformity of tartan worn throughout an entire clan was in 1618, when Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonstoun wrote to Murry of Pulrossie requesting that he bring the plaids worn by his men into “harmony with that of his other septs”. It was a Red Gordon!'
[9]
As I said above, I had encountered this claim before. It's hard to know what to make of it without looking into a lot of old books; I'll add it to my to-do list. What I see in Googling around for this, is that "House of Gordon USA" says this, and dozens of other websites have copy-pasted it verbatim, with no one ever citing a period source. And the claim is vague; it could be referring to the size of the plaid (the plaid is a garment, not a pattern; in that era it would almost certainly have been referring specifically to the great kilt) or some other aspect than the tartan. Bears further research. If it does turn out to be early evidence of what amounts to a clan tartan that would be fascinating. But it also would not change the fact that almost all of them were adopted from 1815 onward. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
In addition to the above, the House of Gordon USA clan association website claims:
'In 1793, Alexander, 4th Duke of Gordon commissioned three patterns based on the Government tartan (Black Watch) from William Forsythe of Huntly. He chose the version with the single yellow over check for himself and his new regiment, and subsequently offered the double and triple tram line versions to the two main Cadet Branches of the Family.'
[10]
This would also be interesting if it could be substantiated by a source independent of the subject (especially given that this particular clan-society website has already proven unreliable on something). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I've pored over the historical (and theoretical) material in these works – D. W. Stewart's from 1893, and Innes of Learney's from 1939. It's been quite a slog. Due to their propensity for quoting older material at great length, the books have been useful for a number of details throughout the article. As to their "clan tartans are ancient" theorizing, I have tried to give them a fair shake, a WP:DUE one, in light of modern tartan scholarship generally rejecting this viewpoint. (In short, I'm taking the WP:FRINGE approach that the popular but discredited viewpoint needs to be explained and dismissed with better evidence, not just swept under the rug.) This seemed best summarized as a subsection on the nature of the debate itself (which plenty of our readers would have no idea of before arriving here). That subsection still needs some work, relying more on modern books and their own summaries of the debate and where it has presently ended up; but it's a start. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
In the section on lack of evidence for early adoption, we have (with a source):
David Morier's well-known mid-18th-century painting of the Highland charge at the 1745 Battle of Culloden shows the clansmen wearing various tartans, despite men charging in kindred groups. The setts painted differ from one another and very few of those painted resemble today's clan tartans.
Scobie (2012) claims that the painter relied on captured Highlanders as models, wearing whatever tartan they were told to put on. Scobie's article is irrational garbage, but if he's actually right about this particular claim, then the material quoted above (I think ultimately from J. Telfer Dunbar) is not actually a valid example of counter-evidence against the "ancient clan tartans" legend, and should be removed as misleading (though the accompanying illustration might be useable in the "17th–18th centuries" section). Our article at An Incident in the Rebellion of 1745 neither confirms nor denies Scobie's claim, so further source investigation is needed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
David Morier's well-known mid-18th-century painting of the Highland charge at the 1745 Battle of Culloden shows the clansmen wearing various tartans; very few of the setts painted resemble today's clan tartans.That point is actually still relevant, and not misleading. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)